|
By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Court of Appeals last week invalidated part of a law that permitted individuals, institutionalized as "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect” (NGI) and later released, to be sent back into state custody for mere rule violations.  Judge JoAnne F. Kloppenburg wrote for the three-judge panel in District IV, joined by Judges Brian W. Blanchard and Jennifer E. Nashold. The case centered on the institutionalization, release, and reinstitutionalization of Desmond J. Wilhite. Wilhite had been found NGI on a charge of threatening a law enforcement officer and committed to the care of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. In November 2022, the state stipulated to Wilhite’s conditional release, stating that he “did not 'currently pose a significant risk of harm to self, others, property.'” As a result, the circuit court ordered Wilhite conditionally released in February 2023 to the same community residential facility where he previously resided. That release was later revoked by Dane County Circuit Court Judge Josann M. Reynolds. DHS had sought to have Wilhite’s conditional release revoked based on DHS rule violations, the nature of which were not specified in the appellate court’s opinion. The statute at issue allowed revocation and reinstitutionalization of NGI-committed individuals who had been released based on 1) violation of a release condition set by the court or DHS, or 2) the individual’s current dangerousness. Reynolds found that the state had met its burden of proof regarding rule violations by Wilhite and that it was "'not a situation where (she had) to find dangerousness.'" Wilhite argued on appeal that the law was unconstitutional on its face because it allowed a circuit court to revoke an NGI individual’s conditional release based solely on a violation of a court-ordered or DHS rule, absent proof of dangerousness. Wilhite relied on federal law to argue that it “always violates due process” to commit an individual to institutional care without proof of dangerousness, because due process requires release from commitment when the individual is no longer dangerous. The court of appeals agreed. Kloppenburg wrote that if an individual is conditionally released, the court must necessarily find that an individual no longer presents a danger to themselves or the community. “(I)f a court finds that an NGI acquittee is no longer dangerous, the court must release the acquittee because the constitution prohibits continued commitment.” After that, “the inference of dangerousness from an NGI verdict is no longer sufficient to justify commitment; rather, dangerousness must be established as a matter of fact,” she wrote. “It follows from this that, to avoid violating due process, a circuit court many not commit to institutional care a conditionally released NGI acquittee without making a new finding of dangerousness,” Kloppenburg wrote. “(I)n all such cases the court has previously determined that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the acquittee is dangerous.” Because state and federal law require a finding of dangerousness to justify the detention of an NGI individual, the portion of the statute allowing reinstitutionalization for rule violations alone is unconstitutional, the court held. The court left in place the remainder of the statute. Wilhite’s case was reversed and remanded to the circuit court with directions to vacate the order that revoked his conditional release and recommitted him to institutional care. 
0 Comments
 The Wisconsin State Capitol on Sept. 19, 2025. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
With the Wisconsin Legislature roughly halfway through its 2025-2026 session, it’s time for a roundup of pending legislation that could impact civil rights, the criminal justice system, and courts. The Legislature recently exited a floor period—when legislation can be scheduled for a vote. Gov. Evers vetoed a bill that would have required the Department of Corrections to recommend revocation for individuals charged with a new offense while on community supervision. WJI covered that bill here and here. The Legislature’s upcoming floor period will run from Oct. 7-16. The following bills have made significant progress. All summaries below are quotes from the analysis provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau unless italicized (WJI’s additions). The titles are WJI’s summaries of the often lengthy and sometimes misleading ones provided by the bill’s author. When the bills in the Assembly and Senate are generally the same, WJI links to just one. An asterisk * denotes a bill substantially similar to one introduced in a previous session but which either failed to pass or was vetoed by the governor. For a refresher on the lifecycle of a bill, you can find that here. But the rough progression of a successful bill is: introduction → referral to committee → passage by committee → vote by full chamber → transfer to the other chamber to go through the prior three steps there, too → to the governor for signature. AB34/SB25 – Court issued criminal complaints (John Doe prosecutions)* Under current law, a district attorney has the discretion as to whether or not to issue a complaint to charge a person with a crime. Current law also provides that, if a district attorney refuses to issue a complaint against a person, a judge may conduct a hearing to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime and, if so, issue a complaint. Under this bill, when there is an officer-involved death, which is a death that results directly from an action or an omission of a law enforcement officer, and the district attorney determined there was no basis to prosecute the officer, a court may not issue a complaint against the involved officer unless there is new or unused evidence presented. Status: Passed in Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly. AB4/SB30 – Required civics instruction* Beginning in the 2027-28 school year, this bill requires school boards, independent charter schools, and private schools participating in a parental choice program to include in their respective curricula instruction lessons in civics that includes specific following topics and pupil development goals… The bill also requires school boards, independent charter schools, and private schools participating in a parental choice program to annually report to the Department of Public Instruction regarding how they are meeting the civics instruction requirement created under the bill. DPI must then compile the information and submit it to the legislature…. (U)nder current law, a school board may grant a high school diploma to a pupil only if the pupil meets specific statutory requirements, including earning a certain number of credits in various subjects in the high school grades and passing a civics test comprised of questions that are identical to those that are asked as part of the process of applying for U.S. citizenship. Currently, a pupil must earn at least three credits of social studies, including state and local government. The bill specifies that the social studies credits also must include one-half credit of civics instruction. This graduation requirement first applies to pupils who graduate in the 2030-31 school year. Status: Passed in Assembly; referred to Committee on Education in the Senate. AB24/SB57 – County sheriff assistance with certain federal immigration functions This bill requires sheriffs to request proof of legal presence status from individuals held in a county jail for an offense punishable as a felony. The bill also requires sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal department of homeland security regarding individuals held in the county jail for a criminal offense. Under the bill, sheriffs must annually certify to the Department of Revenue that they have complied with each of these requirements. If a sheriff fails to provide such a certification, DOR must reduce the county’s shared revenue payments for the next year by 15 percent. The bill also requires sheriffs to maintain a record of the number of individuals from whom proof of legal presence is requested who are verified as unlawfully present in this state and a list of the types of crimes for which those individuals were confined in the jail. The information must be provided to the Department of Justice upon request, and DOJ must compile the information and submit a report to the legislature. Status: Passed in the Assembly; passed committee in the Senate and qualified for scheduling. AB77/SB66 – Registration plate concealment devices and providing a penalty Under current law, any motor vehicle for which the Department of Transportation has issued registration plates must display those plates, along with any decals issued for the plates. This bill prohibits the possession, sale, purchase, installation, and use of a registration plate concealment device, which is a manual, electronic, or mechanical device designed or adapted to be installed on a motor vehicle to 1) switch between two or more registration plates; 2) move, obstruct, or conceal a registration plate; or 3) alter the appearance of a registration plate so that the registration number cannot be seen and read. The bill also prohibits the equipment of any motor vehicle with a registration plate concealment device. A person who violates these prohibitions may be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 90 days, or both. Any vehicle equipped in violation of these prohibitions may be impounded, and reasonable costs for towing and impounding the vehicle may be assessed against the owner. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in the Senate; passed committee in the Assembly and qualified for scheduling. AB66/SB76 – Dismissing or amending certain criminal charges and deferred prosecution agreements* Under current law, a prosecutor may dismiss or amend a criminal charge without approval from the court. Under this bill, a prosecutor must get the court’s approval to dismiss or amend a charge if the charge is for any of the following: 1) a crime of domestic abuse or a violation of a domestic violence temporary restraining order or injunction; 2) theft of an automobile; 3) a crime of abuse of an individual at risk or a violation of an individual-at-risk TRO or injunction; 4) first-degree, second-degree, or third-degree sexual assault; 5) a crime against a child; 6) illegal possession of a firearm if the person has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent for, or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of, committing, soliciting, conspiring, or attempting to commit a violent felony, as defined under current law; or 7) reckless driving that results in great bodily harm. The court may approve the dismissal or amendment of such a charge only if the court finds the action is consistent with the public’s interest in deterring the commission of these crimes and with the legislature’s intent, expressed in this bill, to vigorously prosecute individuals who commit these crimes. If the court approves any dismissal or amendment in a year, the court must submit an annual report to the legislature detailing each approval. Current law allows a prosecutor to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with a defendant who is charged or may be charged with a crime. Generally, under a deferred prosecution agreement, the prosecutor agrees to dismiss a charge or not file a charge if the defendant complies with specified conditions. In addition, current law provides specific criteria for a deferred prosecution agreement if the defendant is or may be charged with child sexual abuse if the defendant is the parent of, the guardian of, a close relative of, or residing with the child; with a crime of domestic violence; or with a violation of a domestic violence TRO or injunction. Current law also prohibits a prosecutor from entering into a deferred prosecution agreement with a defendant who is charged or may be charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or a controlled substance, causing injury to another while operating a vehicle while under the influence, or homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle. The bill prohibits a prosecutor from entering into a deferred prosecution agreement with a defendant if a complaint or information is filed that alleges the person committed any of the same crimes listed in items 1 to 7 above. Status: Passed in the Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly. AB124/SB146 – Prohibiting persons convicted of a violent crime from changing their name Current law prohibits a person who is registered as a sex offender with the Department of Corrections from changing their name during the period they are required to register. With certain exceptions, a person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony. This bill prohibits a person who has been convicted of a violent crime, which is defined in the bill and includes homicide, battery, kidnapping, stalking, human trafficking, and sexual assault, from changing their name. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in the Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly. AB89/SB92 – Retail theft enhanced penalties Under current law, the penalty for the crime of property theft varies by the value of the property taken…. Similarly, the penalty for the crime of retail theft varies by the value of the merchandise or service that is taken…. This bill specifies that, if, in a six-month period, a defendant commits more than one violation of property theft or more than one violation of retail theft, the value of items taken at each violation may be aggregated and the crimes may be prosecuted as one property theft crime or one retail theft crime. The penalty for the crime would be determined by the aggregated value of the items taken. Creates a new crime. Status: Passed in Assembly; public hearing held in Senate, no vote from committee yet. AB75/SB115 – DOJ collection and reporting of certain criminal case data* This bill requires state DOJ to collect from the director of state courts all of the following information for each criminal case: 1) the county in which the case was filed; 2) the name of the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case; 3) the name of the court official assigned to the case; 4) the criminal charge filed; 5) the charging recommendation from the referring law enforcement agency, if applicable; 6) for each case, whether the court released the defendant without bail, upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond, upon the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or upon the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, or denied release, and the name of the court official who made the decision; 7) for each case for which a court required the execution of an appearance bond with sufficient solvent sureties, the monetary amount of the bond and the name of the court official who made the decision; 8) for each case for which a court required the deposit of cash in lieu of sureties, the monetary amount of cash required and the name of the court official who made the decision; 9) any other conditions of release imposed on the defendant and the name of the court official who made the decision; 10) whether any plea bargain was offered in the case; 11) whether a deferred prosecution agreement was offered in the case; 12) whether any charge relating to the case was dismissed; and 13) whether the case resulted in a conviction. Status: Passed in the Assembly; qualified for scheduling in the Senate. AB148/SB147 – Interpreter action by telephone or live audiovisual means in criminal and civil proceedings Under current law, in any civil or criminal proceeding other than a trial, a court may permit an interpreter to act by telephone or live audiovisual means. This bill removes the exclusion for trials, so that an interpreter may act by telephone or live audiovisual means in any civil or criminal proceeding. Amended to require the consent of all parties. Status: Available for scheduling in the Senate; public hearing held in the Assembly. Update 10/2/25: Passed by Assembly committee on Oct. 1, available for scheduling in the Assembly for a full vote. AB190/SB194 – Obtaining attorney fees and costs under the state's public records law when an authority voluntarily releases a contested record after an action has been filed in court Currently, if a person requests access to a public record and the agency or officer in state or local government having custody of the record, known as an “authority” under the public records law, withholds or delays granting access to the record or a part of the record, the requester may bring a mandamus action asking a court to order release of the record or part of the record. Current law requires the court to award reasonable attorney fees, damages of not less than $100, and other actual costs to the requester if the requester prevails in whole or in substantial part in any such action. The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided in 2022 that a requester prevails in whole or in substantial part only if the requester obtains a judicially sanctioned change in the parties’ legal relationship, for example, a court order requiring disclosure of a record. See, Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2022 WI 57. Under the supreme court’s decision, a requester generally is not entitled to attorney fees and costs if the authority voluntarily or unilaterally without a court order provides contested records after the requester files an action in court. This bill supersedes the supreme court’s decision in Friends of Frame Park. Under the bill, a requester has prevailed in whole or in substantial part if the requester has obtained relief through any of the following means: 1. A judicial order or an enforceable written agreement or consent decree. 2. The authority’s voluntary or unilateral release of a record if the court determines that the filing of the mandamus action was a substantial factor contributing to that voluntary or unilateral release. This standard is substantially the same as the standard that applies for a requester to obtain attorney fees and costs under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Status: Passed in the Senate; qualified for scheduling in the Assembly.  Community members fill the room at the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting on Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025. Photograph by Amanda Merkwae. By Alexandria Staubach Almost three dozen members of the public turned up at a Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting last week to discuss an item nowhere on the agenda. The FPC wanted to talk about its procedure for public comment at meetings and had invited representatives from Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, and others to publicly comment on FPC file 212211, a communication from the commission regarding public comment at meetings. While some community members highlighted suggestions for improving communication between the FPC and the public, most instead used their time to discuss the volume of high-speed pursuits that have resulted in innocent bystander fatalities this year. A crash the day before Thursday’s meeting killed a mother and her two children at North 35th Street and West Vliet Street. Nine people have lost their lives from high-speed police chases this year—six of them innocent bystanders. What was actually on the agenda: a change in the FPC’s public comment policy. For years, items that were not formally noticed on the commission’s agenda were not up for discussion and could not be commented on by members of the FPC. While the public comment policy is still evolving, members of the public who register in advance will be given five minutes to speak, up from the previous two-minute limit. Also, FPC members will be allowed to address the topics raised, even if they were not on the agenda. FPC Executive Director Leon Todd said the “potential” improvements to the public comment policy came from considering recommendations in the Milwaukee Turners’ 2024 white paper. The Turners issued the white paper after observing the commission’s meetings over the course of a year. Nothing legally prevented the FPC from having such a policy in the past. Todd said “there is no legal prohibition” addressing nonagenda public comments at a meeting, “so long as they take no official action” and keep the discussion to the public comment section of the proceedings. In addition to using the new policy on comment time and topics at Thursday’s meeting, the commission rolled out a new website for community members to register in advance for future meetings. The website encourages people to “be clear and respectful,” advises them to avoid sharing confidential information, and instructs that testimony should relate “to the FPC’s role in oversight, policy, recruitment, discipline, or accountability” of the Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee Fire Department, or Department of Emergency Communications. Most attendees seemed receptive of change, but some highlighted that expanded time alone would not fix the communications dynamics at FPC meetings. “I see you all engaging earnestly,” said community advocate and FPC meeting regular Ron Jansen. “The structure undermines the effort,” he continued, because the public comment would still occur at the top of a meeting. “We all give our comment and show all our cards, and then the police come up here and call us liars over and over again,” Jansen said. The format “doesn’t give us a fighting chance to adjust our message,” he said. Following the FPC meeting, WJI spoke with BLOC member J. Robinson by phone about how community members co-opted the meeting time to discuss their priority issue of police pursuits. Robinson said although they had originally intended to speak on the public comment agenda item, the “reckless driving issue was more important,” and MPD’s pursuit policy was “doing more harm than good.” About the changes in communication policy, Robinson told WJI “it was better to be able to speak to the issues.” According to the FPC's 2024 vehicle pursuit report, 71% of Milwaukee police chases in 2024 reached speeds in excess of 75 miles per hour, up from 66% in 2023. A decade ago, the percentage was just 22%. Even during the height of COVID, which is widely regarded as exacerbating reckless driving, the percentage was 58%. Police most frequently engage in high-speed pursuits in response to reckless driving. The circumstances permitting police pursuits are found in MPD’s Standard Operating Procedure 660. Public outcry about pursuits that resulted in injury resulted in a restricted policy that took effect in 2010. That policy brought pursuit numbers to their all-time low of just 50 pursuits in 2012. In 2017, though, the MPD expanded officers’ ability to pursue vehicles in response to reckless driving. That policy remains in effect today, with a modification last year that limits when they can initiate a chase over drug activity. “As it stands, SOP 660 does not benefit this community,” said Milwaukee Alliance representative Kayla Patterson at Thursday’s meeting. “The last few months highlight gross incompetence” and a “general shameful agenda prioritizing property over lives,” Patterson said. She cautioned that “if the turnout in the room is any indication, the community is getting restless.” Antoher speaker, Tiffany Stark, said her child’s father became paralyzed from the neck down as an innocent bystander to a police pursuit. “We want to blame the criminal, but we have a policy that is harming innocent people," she said. Janaisa Rhodes lost her partner as an innocent bystander to a pursuit earlier this year. She appeared for public comment with her 2-year-old son. “You guys are supposed to be serving and protecting us, but you’re doing a lot of the damage,” she said. Public comment was not just criticism. Some speakers offered suggestions and potential solutions. “Property crimes should not qualify for pursuit,” suggested community member Brian Verdin, who also talked about using darts, meaning tracker technology shot at cars to apprehend suspects without pursuit. Concerned citizen Alex Larson referenced the 2024 vehicle pursuit report to highlight that the apprehension rate from a police chase is only 49%. “It’s a coin flip” that lives are being lost over, he said. Larson asked whether the FPC knew how much tax money had been paid by the city to settle innocent bystander claims over the years. Knowing the taxpayer impact and the lives SOP 660 has cost over the years could have a significant impact, he suggested. The FPC did not know the answer to Larson’s question. However, under the new comment policy Todd was able to say it would be good data, which he intended to look into. Per the 2024 vehicle pursuit report, the actual number of pursuits was down just slightly from 2023 (957 compared to 1,081), but maximum speeds were up, and a slightly greater percentage of pursuits resulted in crashes.  Figure from the 2024 City of Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission Vehicle Pursuit Report. In 2024, 26 pursuits resulted in an injury to an officer, 52 pursuits resulted in an injury to an innocent bystander or third party, and 164 pursuits resulted in an injury to the person being pursued—each a slight increase from 2023. WJI discussed the FPC's 2023 vehicle pursuit report here. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Stephanie R. Hilton
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: April 28, 2025, to a term ending July 31, 2026 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Superior High School – Blaine High School, Blaine, Minnesota Recent legal employment: August 2020-present – Assistant attorney general, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin January 2019-August 2020 – Legislative director, Office of the Governor, Madison, Wisconsin May 2015-January 2019 – Assistant district attorney, Dane County District Attorney June 2014-April 2015 – Assistant District Attorney, La Crosse County District Attorney Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: Throughout my legal career, public service has been at the heart of my practice, and I continually seek opportunities to make my community better and serve my state. As an attorney, I have focused on criminal law, with a specialization in prosecuting domestic abuse and sexual assault offenses. Though my passion and expertise lies with sensitive crimes, I have prosecuted a wide range of cases from drunk driving to homicide. Describe typical clients: The people of Wisconsin have been my only client. As a prosecutor, I have a unique ethical obligation to seek justice for all Wisconsinites, both defendants and victims. Ensuring their constitutional and statutory rights are upheld has been a guiding principle in my career. Representing the state means working with victims from all backgrounds, many who face significant challenges participating in the criminal legal system, including risk to their personal safety. This obligation also means pursuing justice for defendants, whether by declining to issue charges, advocating for case dispositions focused on rehabilitation, or taking cases to trial when necessary. Ultimately, as a prosecutor, I pursue outcomes that enhance public safety, uphold the law, and provide justice for victims. Number of cases tried to verdict: 22 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: State v. Aidison Yang, Dane County Case 2023CF347 (Dane County Judge Ellen Berz): As co-counsel, I was one of two Assistant Attorneys General (AAG) representing the State throughout all proceedings. This prosecution resulted from a collaborative effort by the WI DOJ’s Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) team and multiple state and local agencies. This case involved a 2005 stranger sexual assault on a Madison bike path, which remained unsolved until a DNA match linked the defendant to the victim’s sexual assault kit. This case was significant to me because of the stakes for the victim. After waiting almost 20 years, the victim finally had answers and was able to gain some closure through the court process. Despite the compelling DNA evidence, clear facts, and the victim’s excellent memory, I understood the weight of my role: if I did not do my job well, the victim might never feel truly safe again, and the community could remain at risk. I was honored to be part of the team that carried the responsibility of securing justice for her. State v. Kevin McDowell, Dane County Case 2021CF306 (Dane County Judge David Conway): My co-counsel and I were the two AAGs for all stages of the proceedings. This prosecution resulted from a collaborative effort by the WI DOJ’s SAKI team and multiple state and local agencies. The case stemmed from a 2017 sexual assault in Madison where the Dane County DA’s Office did not initially issue charges. The defendant’s DNA from the 2017 victim’s sexual assault kit hit to a different victim’s sexual assault kit collected in 2008, which had been tested as part of SAKI. Further investigation revealed that at least seven other victims had reported being sexually assaulted by the defendant over a 20-year span. This was one of the most challenging cases of my career due to its complex pre-trial litigation, the significant vulnerabilities of the victim, and the broader public safety implications of the case. Pre-trial litigation included extensive motions involving private health records, rape shield protections, and other acts evidence, culminating in an appeal on the eve of trial regarding the admissibility of key evidence. Beyond its legal complexities, this case underscored the importance of testing sexual assault kits to identify serial offenders and connect criminal cases. It also highlighted how a trauma-informed, multidisciplinary approach to prosecuting sexual assault leads to better processes and outcomes for victims. I was honored to be part of the team that fought for justice in this case. State v. Stephan Burton, Dane County Case 2017CF1905 (Dane County Judge Susan Crawford): As the lead Assistant District Attorney (ADA), I represented the State of Wisconsin in all stages of the proceedings, with a colleague serving as co-counsel for trial. This defendant unlawfully entered a UW dormitory by following residents inside, then sexually assaulting two students by groping them while they slept in their beds. This prosecution was significant from a public safety perspective because the defendant had been convicted of nearly identical offenses five years earlier, showing his ongoing threat to women on campus. The case presented trial challenges due to its combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence included campus surveillance video showing the defendant entering and exiting the dormitory, victim testimony, and other acts evidence from the previous offense, admitted through pre-trial litigation. A key challenge was proving the defendant’s intent for sexual gratification, which the State relied on circumstantial evidence to establish, and it became a focal point of closing arguments for both sides. This case was particularly significant to me as it marked my final jury trial as an ADA in the Dane County District Attorney’s Office, in addition to its impact on community safety. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: While most of my litigation experience is in trial courts, I have both professional and pro bono experience in administrative proceedings. As a Public Member of the Medical Examining Board, I serve on complaint screening panels alongside physicians. We review complaints and decide whether to open investigations. If a case proceeds, a Board member serves as a case advisor, reviewing evidence and consulting with agency attorneys to determine next steps. The full Board votes on these decisions and other regulatory matters. This role gave me significant experience with Wisconsin’s licensing framework, insight into medical malpractice, and a focus on patient safety. As a Dane County Assistant District Attorney, I represented the state in revocation hearings on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, particularly for offenders facing revocation due to new domestic violence or sexual assault charges. My role ensured a more victim-centered process in small but meaningful ways, such as creating physical distance between victims and defendants during these in-person hearings. These hearings also deepened my understanding of what defendants face when they are placed on probation. As a law student, I volunteered with the UW Law School’s Unemployment Appeals Clinic, advocating for individuals denied unemployment benefits. Growing up, our family occasionally relied on these benefits, so this work was deeply personal. I prepared claimants for hearings before administrative law judges, conducted direct and cross-examinations, and objected to improper evidence. I handled at least six hearings and saw first-hand how difficult and overwhelming the process was for pro se claimants. I was particularly proud to successfully appeal a case to the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, securing benefits for a claimant. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In my first year of practice, I served as a Law Clerk and Supplemental Court Commissioner for three judges in Oneida and Vilas Counties. I mediated over 200 small claims cases involving creditor/debtor disputes, landlord/tenant matters, real estate transactions, and contract disputes. This experience had a huge impact on me because I saw first-hand that for many litigants, these cases were anything but “small claims.” Most individuals being sued in small claims could not afford an attorney, and while many agreed they owed money, they couldn’t afford to pay the hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars without a payment plan. During mediation, I explained the relevant law and court process, adapting my approach in real time to ensure both parties understood their options. Mediation seemed less intimidating for pro se litigants and offered a pathway to resolving the dispute, ultimately reducing judicial caseload. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
While I have done my best to remember every campaign that I’ve held a position in, I may have inadvertently left out other progressive candidates that I’ve supported. Previous runs for public office: Not applicable All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Justice Jill Karofsky, Dane County Circuit Court, WI Supreme Court, 2017, 2020 Justice Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018 Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, Wisconsin Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, 2011, 2016, 2018, 2024 Judge Susan Crawford, Dane County Circuit Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018, 2025 Judge Payal Khandhar, Dane County Circuit Court, 2024 Judge Diane Schlipper, Dane County Circuit Court, 2022 Judge Juan Colas, Dane County Circuit Court, 2021 Dr. Jill Underly, Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2021, 2025 Nicki Vander Muelen, Madison Metropolitan School Board, 2023 Richelle Andrae, Dane County Board, 2019, 2024 Aaron Collins, Dane County Board, 2022 Melissa Ratcliff, Dane County Board, 2019, 2022 Kelly Danner, Dane County Board, 2018 Arvina Martin, Madison City Council, 2021 While I have done my best to remember every candidate, I may have inadvertently left out other progressive candidates that I’ve supported. Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Medical Examining Board, public member, 2023-present JustDane, board member, co-secretary, 2023-present McKenzie Regional Workforce Center, board member, 2022-present Legal Association for Women, member, 2022-present Wisconsin State Attorneys Association, member, 2020-present Dane County Bar Association, member, 2020-present Association of State Prosecutors, board member, 2016-2019 Wisconsin District Attorneys Association, Board Member 2016-2019 UW Women in Criminal Justice Mentoring Program, member/volunteer, 2022-present Prairie Moraine Friends, Inc., board member and secretary, 2019-present Madison Teal Team, volunteer, 2018-present Madison Area Donor Milk Alliance, breast milk donor, 2023-2024 Women in Courts & Corrections, 2017-2021 Bethel Lutheran Church Women’s Choir, 2002-2010 Lakewood Gardens Condominium Association, board member, 2006-2007 University of Wisconsin-Superior Alumni Association, board member, 2004-2011 University of Wisconsin-Superior National Leadership Council, board member, 2004-2010 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As an attorney working for the State of Wisconsin, I cannot provide pro bono legal services. However, I have sought many volunteer opportunities to serve my community. Currently, I am a Public Member of the Medical Examining Board and serve on the Board of Directors for JustDane and Prairie Moraine Friends, Inc. While training for a career of public service law, I did significant pro bono work as a student. In 2023, I was appointed by Governor Evers to serve as a Public Member of the Medical Examining Board. Part of my responsibilities on the board are to review complaints and assist with decision-making. Through this work, I have gained valuable experience in Wisconsin’s licensing and regulatory framework and medical malpractice, and I’ve seen the importance of having non-physician perspectives, like mine, on the Board, particularly when we adjudicate sexual harassment and misconduct complaints. JustDane provides essential resources for rehabilitation, helping individuals reintegrate into society and reducing recidivism. As a Board member, I help deliver programs for individuals impacted by the criminal legal system. I collaborate with staff and other board members, including those with lived experience to empower individuals to rebuild their lives, ultimately strengthening the safety and well-being of our community. My family and I enjoy outdoor activities with our dogs, often hiking at Prairie Moraine County Park. After noticing the park’s restoration needs, I joined other volunteers to help found Prairie Moraine Friends, Inc. Our organization assists Dane County Parks staff in the preservation, restoration, and management of the park. We support the park’s conservation efforts through volunteer work and fundraising, such as the annual spring Dog Park Clean Up day and seasonal activities like spreading native seeds to help restore the prairie habitat. I am currently in my sixth year as Secretary of the Board. In recognition of my extensive pro bono legal work in law school, I was inducted into the UW Law School Pro Bono Society at graduation. In my third year, I advocated for individuals appealing the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development’s denial of benefits through the Unemployment Appeals Clinic. During an economically difficult time, being denied unemployment benefits was a significant setback for workers and their families. Even though I was still a lawyer in training, the claimants told me they really appreciated my assistance during the hearing so they didn’t have to fight the state alone. I am especially proud of successfully advocating a written appeal to the Labor and Industry Review Commission, securing many weeks of previously denied unemployment benefits. Through the UW Law School Remington Center’s Legal Assistance to Institutionalized Persons project, I worked with incarcerated individuals on various legal issues, traveling to state prisons with fellow students and our supervising attorney. One client seeking driver’s license reinstatement turned out to be eligible for parole but didn’t recognize his own rehabilitation. I researched and wrote a parole advocacy letter; though initially unsuccessful, he was released within two years. By framing his progress positively, I helped him see his own growth. This experience reinforced my belief in rehabilitation and the importance of seeing individuals beyond their past actions. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Now more than ever, we need judges who will follow the law and use it to protect people’s rights, not erode them. Our community needs leaders who reflect their values and shared life experiences—leaders who collaborate, problem-solve, and treat everyone with fairness, dignity, and respect. Throughout my career, I have been preparing—intentionally or not—for this role. As the first in my family to graduate from college, I understand firsthand the opportunities education can provide, beyond what I ever could have imagined. This experience instilled in me a deep commitment to using my knowledge and skills to give back and improve the lives of others. After eight years working in public policy, I attended law school to take my advocacy to the next level and expand my ability to make a difference in people’s lives. My progressive values have shaped my approach as a prosecutor, where I earned a reputation for standing up for the rights of defendants and victims, using my discretion for good, and engaging in fair and honest plea negotiations. I am committed to evidence-based responses to crime, not only because the law requires judges to first consider probation at sentencing, but because the evidence shows that increasing our prison population does not lead to safer communities. People expect the government to solve problems, and the courts play a crucial part within that process. When someone has to turn to the courts to resolve their dispute, they want to be heard and receive a fair resolution. I’ve spent my entire professional career collaborating across disciplines to solve complex problems. My ability to listen, think creatively and critically, and uphold fundamental fairness aligns well with the role of judge. My passion for public service and commitment to justice have driven every step of my career. My extensive jury trial experience and other legal expertise have prepared me for this position, but I also recognize the importance of continuous learning. I do not have experience in every area of the law, and I am eager to ask questions, expand my legal knowledge, and approach new challenges with humility. However, this role is about more than legal training—it requires real-world perspective. As a daughter, aunt, and now a mother, I’ve experienced some of life’s most beautiful and challenging moments. As a judge, I will bring not just legal knowledge, but also empathy, fairness, and a deep respect for the individuals and communities I serve. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), to overturn Roe v. Wade and end 50 years of precedent protecting a woman's constitutional right to an abortion will negatively impact Wisconsinites for generations. In Wisconsin, the Dobbs decision created immediate uncertainty due to the state's so-called "1849 abortion ban." Abortion care was halted. Eighteen months later, a circuit court ruled the ban didn't apply to consensual abortions, allowing this critical health care to resume, though the issue remains pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. For my husband and me, the Dobbs decision was deeply personal—we were in the middle of infertility treatments when it was handed down. The journey was grueling … [redactions] We feel extremely fortunate that our story has a happy ending … [redactions] and our daughter was born in … [redactions] Infertility treatments forced us to make difficult medical and ethical decisions: selective reduction in the case of multiples, genetic testing, and the possibility of terminating for medical reasons. Dobbs made it clear how fragile our autonomy over these choices could be. As a woman who has experienced pregnancy and childbirth, I understand the profound physical changes the body goes through, risks, and the unpredictability of labor and delivery. I cannot fathom misinterpreting the U.S. Constitution to restrict the bodily autonomy of over half the population. Beyond the physical and emotional toll, the economic impact of having a child permanently alters the course of a woman's life. Dobbs was wrong on the law. Its consequences will be felt by Wisconsinites for generations. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson When I first met Chief Justice Abrahamson, I wasn’t a lawyer and had no plans to go to law school. However, because I was working in politics, I knew she was a trailblazer being both the first woman on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, then becoming the first woman chief justice. But I had no understanding or appreciation for her legal brilliance and the contributions she had made, and would make, to the legal profession in our state and the country. In the early 2000s, I was working in the Wisconsin State Capitol as a legislative staffer. As a proud UW-Superior graduate, I always attended the reception at the end of Superior Days, which is an annual lobbying effort where local elected officials, business leaders, students, and other community members from the Superior area gather in Madison to lobby and bring awareness of the needs of the region. I met Chief Justice Abrahamson at the reception, and thought it was incredible that she would take time out of her busy schedule to not only attend, but also speak to the youth delegation and mingle with Superior Days participants in meaningful ways to learn about their lives and issues important to them. A few years later, while attending an event in northwest Wisconsin, I again saw Chief Justice Abrahamson as a guest speaker. She and her husband took time to chat with my aunt and me— not about law or politics, but about everyday life. I was struck again by her warmth and genuine interest in people. Watching her speak eloquently and then weave through the crowd, stopping to connect with local attendees, confirmed what I had observed at Superior Days: her engagement wasn’t for show but a reflection of her deep commitment to public service. It would have been easy and expected for her to give her speech and leave, but she stayed, listened, and learned. Her presence wasn’t just about leadership—it was about truly understanding the people she served. Through law school and my legal career, I’ve read and studied her decisions, developing a full appreciation for her legal acumen and scholarship. While I will never match Chief Justice Abrahamson’s intelligence and wit, as a judge I hope to emulate her commitment to engaging the public in the justice system, and being a champion for individual rights and equal justice under the law. Dane County Circuit Court Judge John Markson During my tenure as a Dane County Assistant District Attorney, prosecutors were assigned to specific criminal branches, appearing almost daily in front of the same judge. My first assignment was in Branch 1, Judge Markson’s courtroom. At the time, I had no idea how fortunate I was. As a newer prosecutor with a high-volume caseload of misdemeanor and traffic cases, I was overwhelmed. Although I had served as an ADA in La Crosse County for about a year before coming to Dane County, the pace and volume were so much greater. There was not enough time or experienced attorneys in the DA’s office to get any meaningful mentorship. However, Judge Markson’s courtroom was different. Judge Markson collaborated with his clerk, court reporter, and bailiff to run an efficient calendar. The day’s calendar could be a mile long, but I never felt rushed or that he was growing impatient with me or the other attorneys working through the calendar. Judge Markson’s calm demeanor and quiet sense of humor set everyone at ease, and helped make the constant churn of cases a little more manageable. Whether it was a joint sentencing recommendation or an argued sentence, he was fair to both sides, genuinely looked for the best in people, and always had hope that things would get better for the people who came through his courtroom. Two of the jury trials I had during that first year in the DA’s office were in Judge Markson’s courtroom. I had never tried an OWI case before and still had a lot to learn, not only about the area of the law, but also how to best present evidence to a jury. I sought Judge Markson’s feedback after both trials, and incorporated his insightful feedback to better my trial skills. One of the things I admired most about him as a judge was not these formal feedback sessions, but the legal and life lessons that were sprinkled in among the motion and plea hearings. In particular, he had a special talent for highlighting teachable moments in court, but doing so kindly and without publicly shaming anyone. Above all, Judge Markson had a seemingly magical ability to draw out the best in the attorneys appearing in his courtroom. The proper role of a judge: The role of a judge is to uphold and protect the rights of people, serve as a referee to ensure legal proceedings are fair, and remain engaged in their community. Now more than ever, judges must follow the law by upholding and enhancing the rights of individuals. Their role is to safeguard against government actions that infringe on rights without due process. Legal standards exist to ensure fairness and justice. Today, it seems like the legal system is facing unprecedented distrust. When people feel like the system is set up against them, they are less likely to accept judicial outcomes, even when the judge provides a well-reasoned analysis clearly supported by the law and the facts. Our democracy is built on core rights and values vested with the people. While working for the Governor, I was often reminded of this by a quote on the conference room ceiling: “The will of the people is the law of the land.” This served as a constant reminder of the immense honor and responsibility I had as part of the Governor’s team, advancing policies and programs that make life better for Wisconsinites. Having worked in each of the three branches of government, I deeply understand their distinct roles and the judiciary’s duty to serve as a check on the executive and legislative branches. Judges must uphold this delicate balance of power that our country’s founders contemplated. With this responsibility in mind, a judge is a referee, ensuring that all parties adhere to the law and play fairly in the courtroom. Treating others with dignity and respect is essential in this role, whether interacting with attorneys, the people they represent, or unrepresented individuals. Fairness requires listening, applying the law to complex and often emotional facts, and holding parties accountable when they fail to follow the rules. People come to court during some of the most challenging times in their lives – facing criminal charges, custody disputes, or personal hardships. A judge’s fair-minded approach can help ensure the parties feel heard and valued in the process. Equally important is a commitment to impartiality and integrity, which reinforces public trust in our judicial system. I recognize the weight of this responsibility and would approach each case with a balanced, objective perspective. Judges are leaders in our community and should remain engaged beyond the courtroom. Legal decisions should not be made in isolation, disconnected from the real-life struggles people face and the consequences their decisions have on their neighbors’ lives. Attending events and staying informed about issues facing our community fosters a broader understanding of the issues before the court. As judge, I will uphold this commitment, ensuring both fairness in the courtroom and meaningful engagement in the Dane County community.  The legislation mosaic inside the Wisconsin Capitol dome. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach
Despite decades of research highlighting the detrimental effects and inefficiencies of mandatory minimum sentences, the Wisconsin Legislature is considering a bill that would impose a mandatory minimum for human trafficking. The Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety last week held a hearing on the bill, AB 265. Legislators mostly bypassed the mandatory minimum aspect of the proposed law. “The number of convictions versus the number of incidents is minuscule to that extent I support this bill,” said bill co-sponsor Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond du Lac). Law enforcement and legislators shared stories on the human tragedy associated with trafficking. “Lives are destroyed in a massive, massive manner,” said Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia). Wittke said the impetus for the bill came from law enforcement. “I can’t state enough how working with law enforcement, when they come to you with something they have seen on the street, I believe that we should listen and do the job that we were elected to do and bring legislation forward,” he said at the hearing. No party spoke in opposition. Under current Wisconsin law, human trafficking is punishable by a maximum term of incarceration of 25 years, and trafficking a child is punishable by a maximum term of incarceration of 40 years. The bill would increase the maximum penalties and raise the felony levels of the offenses, and it would also create a mandatory minimum term of confinement in prison of 10 years for adult trafficking and 15 years for child trafficking. The mandatory minimum part of the bill raises concerns for criminal justice advocates. “Nobody disagrees that human trafficking is among the most serious of crimes,” says WJI President and criminal defense attorney Craig Johnson. “Nonetheless, there’s no evidence to support that mandatory minimums decrease the instances of the offense or otherwise deter traffickers,” he said. Johnson believes that "any new law that interferes with the discretion of a judge to fashion a sentence that fits the individual circumstances of a particular case is a bad idea.” “In Wisconsin, legislators are elected to write laws, not sentence people. That's a judge's job, and it's what they're elected to do. If a judge's sentences do not reflect the will of the electorate, the remedy is in the voting booth," he said. According to a report by The Sentencing Project, “criminal legal experts for ideologically diverse backgrounds maintain that mandatory minimums are an overly harsh, disproportionate punishment.” The Sentencing Project found that mandatory minimums shift sentencing discretion away from judges and onto prosecutors, as the latter control the decisions to charge and whether to offer a plea agreement. “(T)he threat of mandatory minimums also encourages defendants to plead to a different crime to avoid a stiff mandatory sentence,” the report found. Mandatory minimums are not common in Wisconsin. They apply to a few offenses, including second and subsequent felon-in-possession, intoxicated driving, child sex offenses, and second or subsequent sexual assault and violent crimes. Racine County Sheriff's Office Investigator Luke Johnson is working with legislators on the bill. He spent two years between 2023 and 2025 on a task force specifically targeting human trafficking and internet crimes against children. When asked whether he or the legislators had consulted with prosecutors or judges about the mandatory minimum aspect of the bill, he indicated that he had not. In his written comments in support of the bill, O’Connor said that his support of mandatory minimums is intended to “ensure that the perpetrators of human trafficking are punished for their crimes but also prevented from doing further harm to their victims and our communities.” Despite the lengthy sentences already permitted, “across our county, Americans are seeing the disastrous and tragic consequences of prosecutors and judges who are proudly soft on crime,” he said. O’Connor said his concerns stem from five out-of-state sentences from 2022 to 2025 where defendants convicted of trafficking received between six and eight years in prison. Those sentences were imposed in New York, Los Angeles, and Colorado. The only Wisconsin sentence O’Connor referenced was a case in which a defendant convicted of child sex trafficking received a lengthy 34 years in prison. The Senate's companion bill, SB 266, has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing in that chamber.  By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Assembly this week spent its time voting on AB 58, which generally prohibits the display of any flag other than the U.S. flag or State of Wisconsin flag from being flown, hung, or otherwise displayed from the exterior of any government building. “Are we really going to pass a law prohibiting the city and county of Milwaukee from raising a flag celebrating Black people’s liberation from chattel slavery?” asked ACLU of Wisconsin in a letter of opposition to the Legislature. In a word, “yes.” The stated purpose of the legislation is to unify Wisconsinites. “Our goal with this non-partisan bill is to ensure that our schools and government institutions remain above partisan politics,” said Rep. Jerry L O’Connor (R-Fond du Lac) in written testimony. But the bill has specific language that would preclude the flag representing Juneteenth from being flown. Milwaukee has flown the Juneteenth flag from city hall during the week of June 19 since 2020, having one of the oldest annual public celebrations of the holiday. “This action has been and will continue to be more divisive,” said Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee). “Diversity should be celebrated, not hidden away,” she said. She questioned whether the bill violates First Amendment rights and whether it will survive legal challenges should it be enacted as law. The bill applies to municipal buildings as well as state buildings. And it won’t affect just Juneteenth flags. The pride flag received special attention at Thursday’s hearing. It would no longer make periodic appearances at government buildings, especially the Capitol, if the law is enacted. Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego) took issue with several constituents who reached out before the day’s proceedings to express opposition to the legislation but who could not tell him what the pride flag means, when he asked. “Their own communities don’t know what the flag fully means or represents but we all have to accept it,” he said. “I don’t think we should be in the business of putting flags up that sow divisiveness to protect one group’s feelings but offend many others,” he said. Wichgers made no secret of his opposition to the pride flag specifically, concluding, “flying that above our Capitol is beneath our dignity.” No flag could relate to any political party or social cause, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious viewpoint or racial identity. Those related to a “gang or extremist group as designated by the federal bureau of investigation” are also expressly precluded. Exceptions are made, however, for flags of local governmental units, foreign dignitaries and delegations, the armed services, indigenous nations, special law enforcement units, and universities, among others. Despite O’Connor’s testimony that the bill was nonpartisan, and his insistence that the legislation would help everyone “get along,” the vote proceeded along party lines, with 50 Republicans voting in favor of the bill and 44 Democrats opposing it. Four members “paired” their vote to facilitate their absence. Vote pairing occurs when members of the opposite party or with opposing views agree in advance to not vote on a given issue, effectively canceling the other out. The pair is not counted toward the official vote but is recorded. The bill now moves to the Senate. If passed there, it would then go to the governor for approval or veto.  Former Chief Justice Ziegler is outraged by changes to Supreme Court's internal operating procedures9/9/2025 By Alexandria Staubach
Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler says the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has abandoned two-year-old internal operating procedures that took power from the chief justice and gave more decision-making authority to an administrative committee controlled by the court's majority. Ziegler discussed the recent procedural changes in her dissent to a July 2025 decision declining to establish a permanent specialty court for complex business litigation. “The public will not know what occurred behind closed doors for this about-face to take place,” said Ziegler about the changes in procedure, which occurred since Ziegler was replaced as chief justice. Wisconsin Watch in 2023 published the heated emails exchanged between justices when the majority formed by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky, and Janet Protasiewicz changed internal operating procedures shortly after Protasiewicz took her seat on the court. The changes took power away from the chief justice—at that time Ziegler. Ziegler served two two-year terms as chief justice, from 2021-2025. This spring, the same majority that changed the rules in 2023 voted in two new chief justices, first Walsh Bradley, whose term on the court expired at the end of July, and now Karofsky. Ziegler was the only chief justice to deal with the more liberal majority’s internal operating procedures. Ziegler complained in her dissent that "these four justices embrace process when it is convenient and disregard process when it is not." Back in 2023, she said, "(t)he 'court of four,' unlike any majority in history, ensured that it would completely control what had always been understood as the constitutional authority of the chief justice." Ziegler wrote in her dissent that “almost immediately" after her ouster as chief, the court “reverted to the original practices and procedures that had been in place for over four decades.” The “nearly two-year-old changes to our administrative practices and procedures relating to the constitutional role of the chief justice were undone.” Ziegler called the about-face “the exercise of sheer will to undo the constitutional role of the chief justice, when convenient, and reinstate it, when opportune,” calling it a “power grab” and “complete disregard for process.” As for the matter of the business courts, Ziegler criticized the court’s decision to terminate the nearly decade-old pilot project for specialty business courts. She said the decision to end the business court project was a disservice to the memory and work of former Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, who led the court from 2015 to 2019. “The majority does this without any regard to the fact that former Chief Justice Roggensack viewed this initiative as of upmost importance.” Ziegler did not acknowledge in her opinion that conservatives also have a history of changing court procedure when it suits them. Ten years ago, Republicans used a constitutional amendment to replace the 126-year-old practice of the longest-serving justice serving as chief. At the time, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson was the longest-serving chief justice in the state’s history, having taken the helm in 1996. Some felt then that conservatives were attacking the liberal Abrahamson. A campaign backed by $600,000 from the state’s largest business group resulted in passage by voters in April 2015 of a constitutional amendment allowing the justices to vote for chief justice. Abrahamson sued over the amendment but lost. Roggensack became chief on May 1, 2015, having been voted in shortly after the amendment passed. When the new majority of justices in August 2023 passed internal operating procedures to take away certain powers of the chief justice, Dallet said in a statement that they “were primarily made to ensure that any one person could not hold up the work of the entire court.” The statement came at the opening of the court’s 2023-2024 term, during which the court issued a record low of 14 opinions. The court’s productivity is up, with 23 cases decided in the 2024-2025 term. However, the numbers still lag behind the average of 50 decision cases in the previous decade, according to a report from University of Wisconsin’s State Democracy Research Initiative.  By Margo Kirchner
After Wisconsin Justice Initiative identified some improper charges for documents issued by judges in Wisconsin’s eastern district federal court, Chief Judge Pamela Pepper indicated that all judges in the district have been notified and they “will take (these issues) into consideration.” Federal district judges have broad discretion over whether the public is charged for obtaining copies of the orders and decisions they issue. Documents filed in federal district court cases are available to the public through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or “PACER,” system, though generally not for free. For most documents, the system charges 10 cents per page, with a cap at $3.00. Judicial opinions are an exception. Per the fee schedule for PACER, no fees are to be charged for access to “judicial opinions.” That term has been defined as “any document issued by a judge or judges of the court, sitting in that capacity, that sets forth a reasoned explanation for a court’s decision.” Responsibility for determining which documents meet this definition rests with the authoring judge and should be made at the time the document is filed. The judge or staff member when filing an order or decision in the court record indicates whether the document meets the definition. Over several years, WJI staff have incurred charges for certain documents that a reasonable person would think were judicial opinions. Most judicial opinions have been free, as expected, yet charges for judicial opinions occurred often enough to merit raising the issue with the court. WJI wrote to Pepper and the interim clerk of court in July 2025, stating that the categorization of a document as a written opinion “has a large effect on public access and affordability for those monitoring federal cases. Even though documents over 30 pages are capped at $3.00, . . . PACER charges quickly add up," especially for those monitoring cases with extensive dockets and lengthy briefs and opinions. “Improper categorization of judicial opinions may decrease the public’s confidence in the court’s fairness and transparency and cause needless frustration with the court,” WJI wrote. “The public should not be paying for documents that should be free. Such costs impact the openness of the courts and the ability of the public to monitor them.” In litigation brought by a PACER user several years ago challenging his payment for certain judicial opinions, a federal judge in Florida wrote that the authoring judge has the “absolute authority” to decide what court documents constitute judicial opinions. Thus, members of the public seem to have no recourse regarding a court’s failure to categorize a document as a free judicial opinion. WJI asked that the Eastern District’s judges and clerk of court be vigilant in making sure any order filed by a judge is assessed for being a “judicial opinion,” that the chief judge and clerk of court review procedures to ensure that judicial opinions are properly coded in the docketing system, and that court staff are adequately trained on how to docket judicial opinions to make them free to the public. WJI also queried whether the district has a procedure for the public to report improperly docketed judicial opinions in the PACER system and ask for them to be recategorized so they are free to the public. WJI indicated its preference for a default rule “that everything signed by a judge and entered into the case docket should be docketed as a judicial opinion. We argue that anything signed by a judge, plus all court minutes, qualify as judicial or written opinions and should be docketed as such.” Minutes in particular may escape the attention of staff as being judicial opinions. However, the minutes of some judges are quite detailed and contain “reasoned explanation” for the court’s decision, which WJI argues results in them meeting the definition of judicial decisions. “Plus, even for minutes that do not contain reasoned explanations, in light of open court and public access requirements and policies, all minutes should be free to the public.“ Pepper replied that she had shared WJI’s letter with all magistrate and district judges in the Eastern District and that, as noted above, the judges will take WJI’s concerns “into consideration.” WJI argues that a judge should always exercise his or her discretion to grant broader free PACER access, so if there is ever a question about the categorization of a signed document, it should be categorized as a judicial opinion. Have you been charged for a judicial opinion in PACER from the Eastern District or Western District of Wisconsin? If so, please let us know.  By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is back in session, having heard its first oral arguments of the new term on Tuesday. The pair of cases before the court examine privacy under the Fourth Amendment regarding the online world, considering whether materials brought to law enforcement by third-party online platforms require a warrant to be opened. Oral arguments opened for the first time in 30 years without Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. Newly installed Chief Justice Jill Karofsky presided, and Justice Susan Crawford made her debut on the high court bench. The first case involved Snapchat’s sending of a video suspected of containing child sexual abuse material (CSAM) to Wisconsin law enforcement. Snapchat had traced the video to Michael Joseph Gasper’s account. A Waukesha County Sheriff’s Office detective first viewed the material without a warrant. He then obtained a warrant that led to discovery of more CSAM material on Gasper’s phone. Gasper successfully moved to suppress the evidence in Waukesha County Circuit Court. Judge Michael Bohren ruled that Gasper retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his Snapchat data. Prosecutors successfully appealed Bohren’s ruling. Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 2 concluded that Snapchat’s terms of service notify all users that their accounts are monitored for CSAM material, which, if found, would be turned over to law enforcement. During Tuesday’s oral arguments, Wisconsin Department of Justice attorney Michael Conway argued that an exception to the warrant requirement allowed law enforcement to view the material without a warrant. Conway argued that if the government had a “virtual certainty” that looking at the file would not reveal anything else of significance not conveyed by the private party, its conduct was appropriate and permitted. Conway said the case differs from instances where law enforcement officers search a cell phone or container. The government didn’t search a phone or a file, he said. Instead, “the government searched a photo that was provided to it by a third party.” “Snapchat didn’t invite law enforcement to open a whole account,” he said. “The cases are a little frustrating and not particularly clear,” said Justice Brian Hagedorn about the relevant case law. Crawford asked whether the state was asking the court to “narrowly authorize the government to conduct additional searches without a warrant when there is a cyber tip for child sexual abuse specifically” and questioned why the court would make such a distinction. The second case heard by the court presented similar questions. The case arose when Google presented the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office with evidence of CSAM held in a Google Photos account owned by Andres Rauch Sharak. Again, a detective with the sheriff’s office viewed the material without a warrant. In addition to making arguments similar to those made earlier by Gasper, Sharak’s attorney, Bradley Novreske, argued that Google’s monitoring for CSAM amounted to government action because Google would not endeavor to look for the material on its own. “This isn’t voluntary for them,” said Novreske. He argued that the federal government functionally compelled the searches, “indirectly deputizing” online platforms that enjoy immunity for content created by individual users and the privilege of policing themselves. Novreske referred to a group of federal laws known as the “Protect the Children Act.” Those laws do not themselves compel searches, but he argued that they effectively compel online platforms to act like the government in looking for CSAM. “How many courts have said what you’re asking us to say?” Justice Annette Ziegler asked. “No courts have been asked to,” replied Novreske. He acknowledged that whether online platforms are “functionally deputized” to search for illicit material is an issue of first impression nationwide. No one law specifically says that online platforms are required to look for CSAM. In fact, one of the laws encompassed by the Protect the Children Act specifically says that such searches are not mandatory. “I don’t understand how we could disregard a provision that explicitly says searches are not mandated and find that some combination of other provisions or regulations does create such a requirement,” said Crawford. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Gordon R. Leech
Appointed to: Washington County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 11, 2025 (effective Aug. 8), to a term ending July 31, 2026 Education: Law School – University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Undergraduate – Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania High School – Franklin Regional, Munysville, Pennsylvania Recent legal employment: September 2022-present – Prosecutor, assistant district attorney, State of Wisconsin, Fond du Lac County District Attorney’s Office July 2010-September 2022 – Leech Law Office, West Bend, Wisconsin July 2009-July 2010 – Rose & deJong, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 2005-June 2009 – Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin Military service: U.S. Marine Corps, active duty 1992-1995 serving as Judge Advocate (trial counsel and base labor counsel); active reserve 1998-1999; highest rank Major Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. Supreme Court Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (lapsed) Pennsylvania Bar (lapsed) Florida Bar (lapsed) General character of practice: Current: Prosecution of criminal offenses in the circuit court. Formerly practice principally included criminal defense, consumer law litigation and employment law litigation. I’ve represented a clients in workers compensation benefit claims and social security disability claims during the first four years I practiced in Wisconsin. I have also represented people in ch. 13 bankruptcies. For about 2 years in Florida, I worked in an insurance defense firm handling liability and coverage claims. Describe typical clients: Currently representing the State of Wisconsin and its citizens. Formerly specialized in criminal defense on direct retainers, court appointments and State Public Defender appointments. Also represented people in employment and consumer litigation. Number of cases tried to verdict: approx. 35 JT (jury trials), many more administrative and court trials List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: Termination of Parental Rights case (closed proceedings). This case was both a trial and an appeal. I was Lead Trial Counsel and sole counsel for the state on appeal. Fond du Lac County Circuit Court. … Five-day trial in 2023 followed by an appeal. Another ADA and I took over the prosecuting this case after our Juvenile Prosecutor determined he had a conflict just prior to trial. The case was significant because the child was placed with foster parents who provided a stable, loving home, and had been for several years while the sole parent contesting the termination had been incarcerated until recently. The child and foster parents had a close bond, the foster parents were going to adopt, and the evidence showed that the child experienced significant emotional distress when the contesting parent was in contact with him. The foster parents had the child for years, waiting for the TPR to be prosecuted and finalized so they could finalize the adoption, which the child strongly wanted. The case was important to all involved. For me, it was my first TPR matter as a prosecutor. The significant legal issue involved a novel question of whether the incarcerated parent should be relived of the requirements he failed to satisfy while incarcerated when he committed the crime causing his incarceration on the very day the conditions of return were imposed on him. One of the conditions included not to commit any crimes. The facts of this case had not been addressed directly by appellate decisions. We won the trial and subsequent request to terminate parental rights. The contesting parent appealed. I handled the appeal alone, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The SCOW denied the petition for review. The foster parents were then able to finalize the adoption, and the child is living with them now as one of their own. State v. Orlando Daniel; Trial Counsel for the State; Fond du Lac County Circuit Court … May 27-28, 2025. Prosecuting a domestic violence case where the victim waited until testifying to recant her complaint entirely. The defendant was charged with drugs, possessing a firearm as a felon, going armed while intoxicated, and first degree reckless endangering safety of the victim by pointing a loaded firearm at her head repeatedly. The case was significant because the defendant posed a significant threat to the victim and public at large with his actions and the related involvement of firearms and drugs. The victim's recanting testimony jeopardized the entire case. The case was significant to try. It was challenging as a trial attorney to impeach the victim, who was the state's primary witness, and convince the jury that her prior statements were the truth. Keeping calm despite an antagonistic witness and focusing on the rules of evidence, logic and persuasive arguments, I was able to prevail. It was important to stop the cycle of violence against the victim and preventing harm to others in the future. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: Revocation of probation hearings and appeals as defense counsel in many cases from 2018-2022. Litigated many cases before the Equal Rights Division from 2004 to 2018, unemployment, and workers compensation benefit claims and appeals. I’ve also litigated federal admin courts to include the EEOC, Social Security Disability, and Merit Systems Protection Board. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Formerly certified mediator by Fla. Bar and conducted mediation sessions as the mediator in Wisconsin. I’ve participated as attorney to a party in many mediations over the years, probably over 150, in Florida and Wisconsin. I have also handled arbitration claims for stock brokers and for consumers in automotive lemon law claims. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Professional or civic and charitable organizations: ABLE (Audio & Braille Literacy Enhancement), member, board of directors, approximately 2007-2008 National Association of Consumer Advocates, peer group leader, 2016 Wisconsin Bar Civil Rights & Liberties Law Section, chair and board member, 2010-2013 Wisconsin Bar Labor & Employment Law Section, board member, 2011-2014 Florida Chapter of National Employment Lawyers Association, president and other roles, 2002-2005 Florida Bar Labor & Employment Law Certification Review Course, co-chair, 2004 Northboro Home Owners Association, president, approximately 1998 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Volunteer Lawyers Project, gave multiple seminars for volunteer lawyers taking cases in areas typically not served, and I also consulted with an took many consumer related cases on referral as a volunteer lawyer to the project 2010-2018. I accepted appointments in criminal matters at reduced rates through the State Public Defender. There are also many times that I waived my fees or gave a reduced fee to low income clients in consumer and employment matters. I volunteered for several years in mock court competitions in S. Florida as a judge and again in Washington County, WI for high school competitions. For several years I gave presentations on the law and a career in law with Junior Achievement. I spent many days volunteering with my children’s activities to support them in hockey, football and ballet events by working concession stands, announcing games, time and score keeper, and setup/tear down for events. I also volunteer with school events for my soon-to-be step children who are still in middle and high school for various activities. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge because I believe my varied life and professional experiences will help guide me to apply the rule of law as given by higher courts to the facts of the cases presented and arrive at fair and equitable decisions whether that be a criminal case, a family dispute, a civil suit or other matter. I grew up in a very close, middle-class family with three sisters. We typically did not have more than a paycheck to live on. In my own adult life, we had times when money was scarce and times of plenty. College was something l earned, working and finding ways to pay for it on my own. I am a father of three adult children now, all having graduated college in the past six years. I have lived through the experience of a broken marriage and divorce with their mother. I have now learned again what it means to love and be loved once more as I will be married later this year when I will become a stepfather to my fiancé’s three children. I learned about service and teamwork in the Marine Corps. As a lawyer, I have represented many diverse clients in many diverse situations. My clients included businesses in commercial disputes. I have represented people that lost jobs, large sums of money or credit due to wrongful acts of others. Some of my clients were denied medical treatment and benefit claims after being injured at work. I have counseled prospective clients out of lawsuits when I did not see that legal relief was available. I started my career as a prosecutor, then later in life represented people in defense of criminal charges, and I have since returned to representing the people of Wisconsin as a prosecutor—arguably one the best jobs one can have as a trial attorney. I have come to know people at their best and worst, as I have come to know myself from these experiences. With these experiences, I will listen to the people putting their trust in the court; I will judge their disputes fairly; I will treat them with respect; and I will uphold the integrity of the office in which I serve with the highest personal moral standards and work ethic. This is the type of judge I have always most respected regardless of the outcome. People may disagree with the result in a case but accept it because they believe it was a decision free of bias and deliberately made based on the court's understanding of the law. Wisconsin rightfully expects that kind of person in the judiciary, and I believe I can be that judge. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. In 2023, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin decided State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39. This case has a significant impact on the people in Wisconsin because it positively impacted the rights of victims of crime by protecting them from incursions into their privately held healthcare records which historically had a negative effect on victims of crime both discouraging prosecution and inflicting emotional distress. At the same time, it negatively affected the rights of those accused of crime to investigate their accusers in ways traditionally done to attack the veracity of the accusations and credibility of the accuser. The decision is recognized as one of the first cases decided by the SCOW to address the rights of victims under the constitutional amendment and enabling statutes for Marcy's law. However, the court appeared to recognize that victims may have standing to exert rights under Marcy's Law, the court did not decide the standing issue. Instead, the court overruled State v. Shijfra with which courts and parties have wrangled since 1993 when the court said a victim's healthcare records could be subject to discovery by a criminal defendant using an in camera review process. Although the case overturns almost 30 years of precedent, the court was willing to examine whether the earlier opinion was correctly decided, how workable the decision was when put into practice, and the change in respect given to victim's of crime as illustrated in the enactment of the constitutional amendment with Marcy's Law. The opinion is significant in part because it says being old law alone isn't good enough to justify keeping it and signals that victims may have standing to enforce the rights stated in Marcy's law. It seems to shift some of the weight on the scales of justice to a third plate, that of the victim. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Sandra Giernoth, Washington County Circuit Court. Judge Giernoth is smart, direct, and holds attorneys accountable to the standard she clearly sets for herself. She does not show favoritism to either party. She is always prepared and runs her calendar efficiently. If you respect her preparation, intelligence and time, she respects yours. She also took over the Drug Treatment Program in Washington County. Judge Martens's work before her and now her efforts have helped make that one of the most effect treatment programs I have seen in the courts where I have practiced. I aspire to gain the respect she has as a jurist and would look to her as a mentor and role model. Judge William Sosnay, Milwaukee Circuit Court. Early in my career, I appeared before Judge Sosnay as local counsel on behalf of the firm where I worked. It was for a 3-week jury trial involving the death of man from mesothelioma. It was complicated as it was long. Lead counsel was from another jurisdiction, and suffice it to say they played a little rough where he came from. Judge Sosnay was clearly frustrated with lead counsel throughout the case, but he never let on to the jury. He always maintained his calm, professional demeanor. He made his frustrations known and laid out his expectations clearly. Any criticism always occurred in chambers. He was more than patient throughout and never showed anyone disrespect even when he was disrespected. I continued to appear before him in other cases and always left feeling glad to have him as the judge. His judicial demeanor left a great impression on me. I enjoyed practicing in his court knowing that he would be fair to the parties and I always felt respected. If given the opportunity, I hope people will feel the same way in my courtroom. Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court. I admire Justice Roberts for his integrity. He has put judicial restraint and respect for precedent above politics of the day. Regardless of affiliation or agreement with the result, having the courage to decide issues based on these principles honors what I believe is the proper role of the court. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is primarily to uphold the integrity of the office. The integrity of the office for a trial court is upheld by following the rule of law as given by the higher courts, refraining from legislating from the bench, being free of personal or political influence, and maintaining decorum in the courtroom. A judge must know the law, whether from prior experience or by learning it when knowledge is lacking. A judge must recognize personal prejudices and biases and then understand how these may play a part in the judge's own decision-making to avoid letting them influence judicial decisions. Listening to the parties, witnesses, lawyers, and other participants in the process is also necessary, and communicating decisions in a way that shows the judge has listened and understood the parties even if the judge didn't agree with them. A judge should also treat people with respect, ensure that the parties treat each other with respect, and ensure that the parties also treat the office with respect. Being a judge is a privilege ultimately given by the people. The focus should be on the office, not the person. A judge's role should be to honor the office by example, living according to the values of the community the judge serves, acting with dignity and maintaining a high moral character consistent with the judicial code of ethics. A judge must respect the office as much as the judge expects others to do. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed